About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 50 (some duplicates have been removed)
or professional service use to locate there given the lack of visibility from the street. * the second floor of the property consists of [speaker not understood] offices of mental health providers. given that any use on the first floor would have to be compatible with the existing use, it seemed a good use for the ground floor would be additional offices for medical health providers. our office contacted the planning department and confirmed that the only way to remedy the situation, one that we felt worthy of remedying was through legislation. legislation was obviously needed in this case due to the fact that new medical service uses are prohibited in the sacramento street ncd which runs from lion's street to spruce street on sacramento. when drafting legislation we wanted to make sure that we respected the concerns that created the prohibition in the first place. in 1987 when these controls were in place there were concerns that medical service uses were displacing neighborhood service -- neighborhood serving businesses and residential units. i really should not have ran up those stairs. e
about. my concern is turning the property into restaurant use and with all the nuisance that goes along with, that the machine noise from the restaurants, loud music, loud voices, public urination, et cetera. we already have a very large density of restaurants and bars in the area. i would like to understand what is to stop the rest of the building from falling into restaurant use, if this changes? if ever the castro country club should leave, there is a space there with the backyard patio space, that if that ever turned into a restaurant the quality of my neighbors and my building would be compromised such that we would have to move and sell your properties. we made a choice to live in an urban areas with all the benefits and problems that go with that. my boys go to sleep every night with the hum of the restaurant machines and disco beat from the bars and restaurants and we're fine with the existing level of if any place, but we don't want anymore. the existing restaurant is already encroaching on existing space and they are in violation and out of permit. as someone allude to ir, t
for conditional use authorization is being proposed for continuance to february 28th, 2013. i have no other items proposed for continuance and i have no speaker cards. >> is there any public comment on the one item proposed for continuance? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners? commissioner sugaya. >> move to continue item number 1 to february 28th. >> second. >> on that motion to continue 795 folsom to february 28th, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? excuse me, commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> here -- i mean, yes, aye. [laughter] >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 and placed you under your consent calendar. all matters listed hereunder constitute a consent calendar, are considered to be routine by the planning commission, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests
more of an argument for both of them, but i don't think the other one will be for us if this passes. since most of their business is delivery, if you have them closer to each other, you can have drivers driving less distance, burning up less gas and generally be a little bit more favorable to the environment, if you are not going further distances to deliver pizza. also, it is nice to have something that is walkable in a neighborhood. a lot of times you come home and want to get a quick bite and you don't want to have to move your car again or take a bus to get something to eat. you just want to get some food and go home and there are quite a few residences in this area. a lot of parking lot apartment buildings and condos and they mentioned they are getting a higher percentage of walkout traffic in addition to just delivery. it's replacing an existing eating and drinking establishment. that the present owner testified that his price point was too high to be successful. and you know, it just wasn't going to work. so either have a vacant place or you will have this. and finally, lo
hours of our time asking people to comply. the restaurant would be for us, a nuisance that we don't want to have to deal with yet another one. my question is why can't it be either remain a residential space or can it be a commercial space other than a restaurant? i understand that people are trying to make money and go into business, and those are my comments. thank you. >> hello commissioners. thank you for your time tonight and for staying so late. i wish the restaurant was open, so i could go eat right now. my name is terry besswick and i spoke to you a couple of weeks ago. i won't give you the history of the castro country club and i think we heard unanimous support from the commission and the witnesses. i live upstairs from the castro country club for five and a half years and my bedroom is actually bordering the back patio that has been talked about a little bit. i think there was a lot of confusion at the last meeting regarding the back patio. we discussed no ambientneys, noise from the activity itself and no smell from the restaurant as well. we support our landlord. our land
believe that we are rushing this at a rate that does not give us the ability to support. >> commissioner borden. >> i feel quite a bit differently. you know, we have -- the fundamental difference in this project and the project we saw a couple years ago was full demolition of the older building, which was pretty much been kind of a shed standing for quite sometime versus a total demolition. i mean, i always argue about i'm not always confused about de facto or actual demolition. but in all intents and purposes, the previous project we approved didn't even look like the same project although it was not considered a total demolition. now we have a total demolition and we basically have fundamentally the same project before us. the issues, we may have -- we have drawings in front of us and maybe they're not color rendering. but substantially everything about this project, the size and the scope, the only difference that we talked about is the size of the use for the restaurant there being whether or not it was commercial use, other commercial use incorporated. but i haven't actually heard a
recommends that you direct us to come back with separate legislation that would do two things. one, add two additional parcel that would be up zoned to 65 feet in a manner consistent with the market octavia plan. there are two additional corner parcels there that are not historic resources that we believe could be 65 feet. and then the second is to correct what we believe is an error within the nct whether it be 7 parcels that has a 60, 65 foot height designation and two that have a 50-55 foot height legislation. and that would be separate legislation initiated by you. >> great. well, if it's appropriate, i'd like to make a motion for approval. and i would just add the following things that i'd alluded to those in my conversation, that we would allow the provision for off-site full-service food service at other nc districts throughout the city that apply to the criteria here. and then we would remove the sunseting * for this specific instance here that was i believe in the original legislation. and the technical changes that ms. hayward could allude to later. and then the height changes fo
rhode island street, request for conditional use authorization. i believe commissioner moore is requesting that it be pulled off. >> [inaudible]. >> we'll place that first item under the regular calendar. moving on, commissioners, commissioners questions and matters, item 3, consideration of adoption draft minutes for january 31st, 2013. >> is there any public comment on the draft minutes? seeing none, commissioners? commissioner borden. >> approve draft minutes november -- excuse me, from january 31st. >> second. >> on the motion to adopt minutes for january 31st, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? he aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 and places you under item 4, commission questions and comments. >> commissioner antonini. >> thank you. a couple of things, i've been hearing these reports in the news about an impending demolition of candlestick park. about a year from now, if in fact t
will need to look at that increase in projected revenue to help us get to the needed levels. the increases that we are looking at are largely associated with the labor and negotiations that took place last year and the contracts that are in place for the next couple of years. so those are going to increase our salary and fringe benefit cost to a certain degree and we know last year at this time we discussed reducing the city order and we brought it down to $180,000 to $130,000 and we talked about reducing it further going forward to $120,000. at this point i am not going to recommend that we any lower than we are now. we had a work order with the city attorney for the last five years and the utilization has fluctuated over the last five years and that has depended on a lot of factors and it has to do with the caseload and the volume of the cases and the length of board meetings and the hours that the city attorney has to sit with us and the complexity and uniqueness of the cases and the number of new board members that come on and increase of on boarding those members and also changes in t
think it really is a fine, welcoming place. so, i'm supportive of allowing them to have accessory use across the street. staff recommended it be city-wide. i don't think this is the appropriate time to go city-wide. i think that that requires some discussion across the city, what this might mean for other neighborhoods. but i actually don't think this is a top priority for city-wide discussion, depending on what sort of comes up in other neighborhoods. i think what i've seen we've done is make it apply to the entire -- in this case would be the upper market nct, if that portion passes. i refer to actually the sacramento street item that we had today where we change the use for medical street. and also the third floor, what was it, personal service that we made recently on valencia street. so, maybe i can ask the supervisor if he wanted to speak to that at all, the idea of making it available to the entire upper market nct. >>> thank you, commissioners. i would be very open to legislation to change the nct to allow for off-site. i do believe that would probably trigger city-wide discus
anywhere from $2000 to $2500. conditional use takes more time and is more expensive. several departments must weigh in. the planning department, department of hotels, building, electrical, fire, police, noise inspection plus a 30 day posted notice, the application that comes in advance to the public hearing at city hall. and outreach to the neighbors of any particular venue. before i focus on the planning part i will focus on the other departments going back to the health and safety purpose of the whole process. who want to be safe, the food, fire hazards, occupancy. all the inspections that building, electrical, fire, all are pass/fail. if there is something to have to correct they must correct it before they get a permit. to propose specific things the commission can accept or demand. the planning role starts from the very beginning. i will switch to be overhead. you have this on your desk. you don't have to look at the screen. so, this map of san francisco shows where place of entertainment permits are allowed. beiged areas are not allowed. because the map is the way does the fi
a system where we had a creating and nonconformity here that seemed a little awkward to us when the land use itself didn't seem to be -- have a negative impact. >> i personally could go either way. i know the concern particularly in the area of food trucks. people could turn their kitchens into service or food trucks. they may already do that. i don't know what the implications are. i guess the challenge with that -- i mean. i personally think it sounds fine. at a minimum if there were a pass for legalization of off-site kitchens, you could have a sense of the scope of the issue before them going to the next step. that might be kind of an interim thought. >> commissioner hillis. >> so, i'm also supportive of the legislation. i think probably if we use the words unique, funky and [speaker not understood], they're all probably in violation of the planning code. if we looked around. [laughter] >> we could use that adjective unique funky, in violation of the planning code. it's amazing cafe floor is only 900 square feet when you walk by. it feels bigger. there is a lot happening obviously. i
and go to planning. we used to ask them to call. we now have a special form. the process is expensive and long. we don't want to make someone go through it only to learn later that they can't do what they want to do or there are constrains they did not know about. in the planning department they will find if the use is permitted. they won't be heard by the an agenda commission until we have heard from planning. the planning department gets the application and holds it like the other departments. i get something back that says planning approved. and gives me some other information for the record. the process continues. there is a public hearing where the commission hears about the proposed use. we hear from sfpd in the permit officer at the permit station; we hear from the applicant; the commission will vote on the application and may attach conditions. the applicant is usually not done with inspections at that point. 40 days have elapsed, not a lot of time to have heard from six departments. once they are done with the long list the last thing is the sound inspection. we hav
for this. all bunch of us work hard to get through prop c. we are the first folks to come to you and we need this approval. we don't have a project if we don't have this approval. we will start this project in the next two weeks if we get the approval. that's it. 12 minutes. not a very good presentation, i apologize. >>: calling for public comment. i have one speaker card. paula richard. >>: good afternoon. i am paula richard. i work with plant construction. i have been at plant for about 13 years, construction manager and vice president on this project if there is a project. i was asked to take a minute and reiterate what is in my letter. we bid out all of the subcontract work, probably 50 subcontractors ready to go as well once the project goes forward. if you're not familiar with plant construction we want to point out a couple of things. we are a san francisco company company, we been here for 65 years. of the next 26 months there will 521,000 man hours translated in the range of 125 people average per day and up to 200 workers at the peak. if you have any questions i will b
i think both of us really believe the death penalty is wrong, and is flawed for many reasons. the list is as long as my arm -- about several others. we feel this is important for both of us, personally, to participate in the debate of this issue in a way that we can help people frame it for a conversation. -- i like to take roll. >> commissioner antonini: here >> commissioner hillis: here >> commissioner sugaya: here >> commissioner moore: here. >> commissioner borden: here. >>: item 1, 2013.0029x, at 222 2nd street, request for determination of compliance, request for continuance. we have received late request for continued items 10 a, b & c. for case -- the requested data continuances to february 14. i have no other items. i have no speaker cards for matters propose for continuance. i do have speaker card for items on 1741 powell. >> president fong: public comments on items proposed for continuance. >>: good afternoon president fong, commissioners. we did make this request for continuance as a sponsor of this special district use legislation. very briefly i did want to sta
the institutions that have served us so well over the last half century. they are dramatically changing. you see it certainly in media. you've seen it in the financial service industry now increasingly serving the music industry. and you see it in city government. you are a big participant in that dramatic evolution or what i would argue, the dramatic punctuation point in terms of the world we live in. i don't think it's cyclical. i think something dramatic is taking shape here as it relates to particularly the impact of technology is having on the world we're living in. we're living in a fish bowl. the whole idea of holding back information and keeping that information for those [speaker not understood] those in power, those days are over. age of amateurs, big is getting small, small is getting big. this democracy of voices, new contours of a new society, truly i think is being shaped. and, so, you are a big part of that. and i hope the spirit of engagement, civil grand jurors across the state, is respected in that light. as a supervisor, i was a big champion of you. as a marry was a little mor
is there is a demand by many businesses for the broader floor plates and it allows tech uses and other uses that need this kind of configuration to come to satisfy. and i know of another situation that's similar to this at the present time uop [speaker not understood] dental school is renovating a building that already has these broad plates on 5th street near mission. and i was a graduate of the earlier facility and i can speak to the difficulty that facility has in its present location because of the narrowness. so, it's not just tech, but other uses. it's important that we get broad floor plates. however, this has to be correct and i think the things they've done in terms of tower separation, bulk, are very much in keeping with the code. as was pointed out by mr. guy, because of the tdr sold by 6 20, 63 1 howard, there never will be another tower that they have to separate themselves from because even if that building were to be destroyed in a fire or some other manner, it could never be built to more of a height than it's at now because they've already sold their tdrs. and then the bulk, there ar
a future of a north beach station. that's not what's before us. but this project allows that as a realistic possibility. and one of my oppositions or my questioning of the central subway when it first came forward was ending the subway in chinatown. i know that was what was funded and that was what was analyzed and that's what it had to be. but i was really happy to hear even in those days that the extension of the tunnel was proposed to go into north beach and that's, you know, makes a lot of sense. and i've heard that it can be done. the other issue that's been brought up is the height of the new structure which is exactly the same as the height of the existing structure. if you're happy with the height of the existing structure, then i don't really know why someone would object to the very same building at the same height and whether we have to go through the same mechanics again to approve the same thing. and that's maybe one reason why it takes so long to do anything in san francisco, because we like to do it 10 times before we approve it. but it makes sense you're building essentially
used an existing position and temporarily converted it but property ject manager is on board so we are adding a position in to put the project manager in. >> in the $250 million request if that does not come to fruition. >> we will just note it, it does not impact the budget because the money is already appropriate ated it is really more informational. >> right. >> if that number is not actually inside of the budget. because we don't, it is already created. >> if the 0.05 fte that was on like the community initiated, so 0.05. that was that is going up 0.15. >> it is going up to 0.15 and we reallocated it from another line item in the historic preservation. >> what 0.05 mean, you could be divided on the way to work? >> just kidding. >> but, maybe, you know, i don't know if the preservation commission wants more that may be something that if they did not like the $250,000 for the secretary of interior standards perhaps you could ask them for more money for that use >> they have been reporting the response time but they asked us to kind of up our part of it. >> okay. >> yeah, but you
read as different buildings as you move north and south along owens street. * so, you have a use of colors, a use of different materials, some being more glassy, some being a more punched dynamic. and with that you get a sense, even though there is a pattern to the site, they each have their own character ask identity. and i'll just take you around as we rotate around the building site south. that was the east. this is now the southeast looking up from one of the park locations across the street just south of the medical center. * rotating around to the southwest from 2 80. around to the west elevation. we're showing the freeway transparent here. freeway actually isn't. all the things below that will be hidden from view, but we know there had been discussion in the past the fact that might change. we've been equally thoughtful about the west elevation that would have a good he is theyth if i can that were to ever occur. and then at the northwest corner coming in along 16th street. and finally the northeast vantage. i kept it brief because i know you have a complete package. i wan
as a sponsor of this special district use legislation. very briefly i did want to state that the sud is contingent on the lease negotiations that the mta is conducting with the owner of 1741 powell. the negotiations are going. our requested for a continuance of one week. >> president fong: additional public comment on the two items proposed for continuance? >>: my name is richard hamlin longtime resident of north beach. i want this project very much. extraction down at the pagoda and perhaps someday having a station there. >>: -- we submitted a legal letter to the planning commission. -- opposes and objects to the extraction at the pagoda and zoning map amendment and special use district on the grounds of this project is obviously very different from the original project that was approved in the eir by example the geotechnical engineers letter included in the package points out the very high water table and the de-watering and pressure on adjacent buildings not evaluated on a previous eir. also,-- >>: this public comment is only to the continuance itself. >>: should i make comment
it is been in existence, so therefore it is a non-conforming use in terms of being able to load it and unload in that area. they do have a customer dock in the front in the parking lot. the environmental review for this project stated, or it is exempt from the environmental review and there is not a traffic study or any requirement for that. as far as fire and loading, we have not checked that, and that is something that is reviewed after the approval of the conditional use. >> i am going to oppose the continuance, we have the legislation that we are responsible for and we will not always, if we are not willing to up hold in this case, then i fear, i know that one case is not supposed to set a precedent, but it will. i don't think that it is going to do something, although the orchard will talk to people merchants will say that it is not going to effect me and it is okay if i come in there and i can buy something cheaper. as far as the other issues, like loading, if we do pass it, we can take it up in, you know, just deal with it. >> commissioner antonini. >> i don't know if we are supposed t
conditional use. >> i am going to oppose the continuance, we have the legislation that we are responsible for and we will not always, if we are not willing to up hold in this case, then i fear, i know that one case is not supposed to set a precedent, but it will. i don't think that it is going to do something, although the orchard will talk to people merchants will say that it is not going to effect me and it is okay if i come in there and i can buy something cheaper. as far as the other issues, like loading, if we do pass it, we can take it up in, you know, just deal with it. >> commissioner antonini. >> i don't know if we are supposed to debate a continuance. first of all a month from today and if it is okay to speak to it. i think that we have neighborhoods, stores and there are, this is a neighborhood. and but, it is also a very busy area where there is a lot of traffic, coming from other places, which has been brought up. and there might be in the area that might drive out of the city and there is room for both and there might be a way to work something out between th
down because it's affecting the small businesses of san francisco and that's what the formula use business legislation was in there before -- was signed up for. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. >>> good afternoon, i own center hardware. center hardware has been in business -- >> excuse me, sir, if you can state your name for the record. >>> i'm sorry, my name is keith gantner and i own center hardwarement center hardware the earliest records i have are from about 1880. so, we've been around a long time. i haven't been there quite that long. i did a little homework. i went on orchard supply's website and i went to their career page and i pulled up over 300 job openings at this time. 44 of those 300 were for corporate people, people are going to work in their san jose, in their main office, accountants, actuarial people, what have you. 19 of them was for sales lead full-time positions, full time 30 hours plus. all the rest were 29 hours or less, part-time, temporary or part time or temporary positions every, every job opportunity was a part-time or temporary opportun
and working with the agency to further flesh out the use he here. but what again is envisioned is a place where people can gather where there might be an opportunity for some kind of food service or food court or even a restaurant on the ground level. it's a tough corner because of the parking structure across the street from the hospital, but we'd like to try to activate it at least set the structure in a best position possible to activate it in that way. at the other corner of the building that i mentioned, this is the entry if you're coming west ward along 16th street and you're headed towards the building, this gives you a sense of again stepping back away from the freeway. there's a grander sense of arrival and mission bay than there otherwise would and again mission bay is very heavily pedestrian and bicycle traffic street providing opportunities to stop and rest at this point. so, we go to the elevations which is the next page in your package. in addition to creating the open spaces at the corners sw creating the breaks between buildings, each of which is about 40 feet in width, we
that are there. your sound person and their sound person need to figure it out you don't want us to do that because you will not like the outcome. i support the continuance. and come back with something that works for everybody. >> president fong: public comment is all finished. thank you. commissioner borden. >> commissioner borden: i've been to pa'ina loung. the food is great, the entertainment is great. i've been to kabuki also, it's great. we really want to be able to support all the businesses but we need the support all businesses. there needs to be a sound study, a couple of different determinations. seeing it would level the sound bleeds; turning it up to see a what point it bleeds, gives us a base line. also having one sound report. i am not a sound expert. i do know what is too loud. we want to support pa'ina loung and all existing businesses; we don't want to support pa'ina at the expense of the ot her businesses especially when you had a citation not to long ago. we need to get to the bottom of the soundproofing issue before we can move to the next step. what you are hear
't know if you've seen those, but we used to have them that were pages long and it was rather interesting to see by line item what the expenditures were for staff and other things. >> are you referring to the work program with like the fte counts? >> yes. >> and i think that addresses commissioner moore's question also, in two weeks, your memo will have that level of detail where it shows the proposed fte count widths the initiatives, if you want the actual dollar amounts, i can provide you with what you need. >> commissioner moore? >> i would like to add a comment that in the past year, since this is not our standard everyday literature, just reading it, it is more difficult to understand and then having to vote on it after you make a presentation sometimes raises more questions than answers so i'm wondering if we could spread that with the presentation and then vote in on it a week later or something like that. i always feel a little bit overwhelmed because it's so hard to understand. >> if i may, today is just an informational hearing for what we're proposing at this time and in two we
on this for a while and this budget allows us to do that. in the final planning we are looking at roughly two new positions, one would basically continue to work on puc projects but essentially it is a shift from the current position that is a puc position working in the department to a department employee who works on puc projects and funded by the puc and second a transportation planner that took not just on sequa but on longer range policy issues. >> and we are proposing two and a half positions next year bumping up to three in the following year for an it program, or to help on communications and the training and professional development coordinator. so those are the kind of major changes if you will. if you recall, the supplemental budget that you approved allows for ten new positions that will, or being introduced to the board next week, i believe. and that combined with this, budget, would allow for an increase in 18 fte in the department. it takes us to about 175, or 176 positions that is a lot of staff, it is in terms of the new revenue that is coming in with the new applications and the
city rather than us conforming to whatever their business model is. that's the reason i attended the pre-application meeting and that's why i've been in communication with project sponsors. * ever since then to try to assure that this had a greater street presence to what they originally proposed. bear in mind those fancy architectural renderings you're looking at are only appropriate if you're in a helicopter hovering over the project site. the reality on the ground is blanch street is a one-way street going eastward towards the embarcadaro. and in general, what you will see on the ground is the backside of this project and the blanch street frontage. so, if you do approve this project, please ensure that bryant street gives back something to the community. thank you. * >> thank you. next speaker. >>> hello, my name is rick carp, i'm the president of cole hardware here in san francisco and i'm asking you to please reject this project based on the formula retail issues. it's been my passion since the early '80s to try to keep big box and formula retail out of san francisco. i'm
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 50 (some duplicates have been removed)